The Complainant, MAGIMIX (société par actions simplifiée), is a French company founded in 1963 with a strong presence worldwide that designs high-quality professional food processors.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 9 October 2022 and is held by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name website (i.e. website available under the internet address containing the disputed domain name) has a similar layout and “look and feel” as the Complainant’s websites (i.e. it mimics the official Complainant’s website).<\/p>\n
Moreover, an MX record for the disputed domain name specifies the mail server responsible for accepting e-mail messages on behalf of the disputed domain name. This indicates that the disputed domain name can be used for e-mail purposes.<\/p>\n
The Complainant seeks transfer of both disputed domain names to the Complainant.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n A) CONFUSING SIMILARITY<\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - The disputed domain name contains the “MAGIMIX” word elements of the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus it is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n - The gTLD “.STORE” element is not relevant in assessing confusing similarity as it is a necessary technical aspect of domain name registration.<\/p>\n Thus, according to the Complainant, the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n B) NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - Furthermore, the domain name website has not been used for any legitimate or fair purposes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n C) BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles;<\/p>\n - The Respondent can be considered aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to the well-known character thereof and also because the Responded mimicked the official website of the Complainant;<\/p>\n - The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the Complaint or anytime thereafter) was not used for any bona fide offerings of goods or services;<\/p>\n - Moreover, the disputed domain name redirects to a website copying the Complainant’s official website. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial purposes, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Jiří Čermák"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-18 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing the word element \"MAGIMIX\":<\/p>\n (i) MAGIMIX (word), International Trademark, registration date 4 September 1991, registration no. 575556, registered for goods in classes 8, 11 and 21,<\/p>\n besides other national trademarks consisting of or containing the \"MAGIMIX\" wording.<\/p>\n (Collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/p>\n The Complainant has also registered several domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term „MAGIMIX\" such as <magimix.com>, <magimix.fr> and others.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"magimix.store": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}